Reason.com Full Feed

Rand Paul-approved Thomas Massie Winning GOP Primary for a Kentucky House Seat

2012-05-22T19:40:00-04:00

Currently his 47-28 lead with 18 percent reporting is still being described as "slim" by Associated Press, but it seems sizable to me.

The liberty-movement-beloved Thomas Massie (profiled here by Mike Riggs in March) looks set to be the Republican Party candidate in Kentucky's 4th Congressional district.

Rand Paul endorsed Massie earlier this month.

From Riggs' Reason Online profile of Massie:

Much like Rand Paul and his father Ron, Massie’s small-government instincts extend far beyond keeping a tight grip on the checkbook. He’s also opposed to the PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretapping, the police state, the drug war, and military adventurism. Massie’s views on civil liberties put a lot of daylight between him and his most well-known competitor for the GOP nomination, state legislator Alecia Webb-Edgington. A former member of the Kentucky State Police and the Department of Homeland Security, Webb-Edgington also helped launch Kentucky’s DHS-funded Fusion Center and told the crowd at a 2010 Lincoln Dinner, “We don’t need any more socialists, communists, or libertarians in the Republican Party.”

“So she tries to peg him as a survivalist or a libertarian,” Hogan said, chuckling. “And the other candidate has been in government for 16 years. Well, a lot of other people know the two main candidates and have had to deal with them for a while, and a lot of them just necessarily don’t like them too well. Thomas is a breath of fresh air.” With the number of libertarian Republicans in the House approaching zero, Kentucky’s Fourth District isn't the only place in need of some fresh air.

Keep up with results via Kentucky Board of Elections site.

Political Motivations in Scott Walker-Related Probe

2012-05-22T19:11:00-04:00

MADISON — The prosecutor is on the defense.

Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm released a tersely worded statement Monday in defense of David Budde, his chief investigator into a John Doe probe involving Gov. Scott Walker’s former aides.

The district attorney responded to a Media Trackers report earlier in the day that Budde had a “Recall Walker” sign in the front yard of his home.

Media Trackers, a Milwaukee-area conservative watchdog organization, also reported Budde’s home has a pro-labor “blue fist” poster on the front door.

Chisholm said he spoke with his chief investigator and Budde confirmed that his wife, an employee with Milwaukee County, placed the recall sign in the front yard of the home about a week ago.

He did not mention anything about the blue fist.

“I do not regulate or control the constitutional freedoms of my employees’ families in their private lives,” Chisholm wrote in Budde’s defense. “They have the right, under state law, and in this case, county civil service rules, to express their political views as does any other citizen."

Still, Walker supporters have questioned the objectivity of Chisholm, a Democrat, and his office in a county that is a stronghold for union Democrats.

Chisholm said Budde did not sign the recall petition. The district attorney said his investigator has conducted himself “professionally and independently, as he has done in numerous criminal investigations throughout his 26-year career as a law enforcement officer."

“Any decisions related to the John Doe investigation are based on the evidence and not on the political views of any members of this office or their families,” Chisholm wrote.

But Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett has made the John Doe investigation a focal point in his campaign against Walker.

While the Republican governor has not been implicated, Barrett on Monday demanded that Walker release all information related to the probe, including more than 1,000 emails sent through a secret Internet system near Walker’s office in 2010, when he served as Milwaukee County executive.

Barrett's campaign rolled out a fresh round of ads attacking the governor on the John Doe probe.

Walker has said he is cooperating with the investigation.

“The bottom line is my integrity. I’ve always had high standards,” he told Fox 6 in Milwaukee. “In the state Assembly, in my time as county executive, and as governor, I continue to have those high standards. Anytime something’s been brought to my attention that my staff in any way violates that, I’ve taken swift action and the facts are very clear with that."

That point arguably was defined in an email made public in the John Doe investigation.

“We cannot afford another story like this one. No one can give them any reason to do another story. That means no laptops, no websites, no time away during the work day, etc.,” he wrote to a staff member following news that another aide appeared to be campaigning on government time in summer 2010.

Wisconsin Reporter has filed an open records request with the District Attorney’s office seeking information related to Chisholm’s handling of the John Doe documents.

This article originally appeared at WisconsinReport.com.

Matt Kittle on the "Recall Walker" Investigator Leading a D.A.'s Probe of Walker's Office

2012-05-22T19:08:00-04:00

Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm is investigating former aides to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s former aides. But Chisholm's chief investigator has his yard and home festooned with "Recall Walker" and blue-fist signage. “I do not regulate or control the constitutional freedoms of my employees’ families in their private lives,” Chisholm wrote in defense of chief investigator David Budde. “They have the right, under state law, and in this case, county civil service rules, to express their political views as does any other citizen." But WisconsinReporter.com's Matt Kittle shows how Budde's activities cast doubt on the objectivity of Chisholm, a Democrat, and his office in a county that is a stronghold for union Democrats.

View this article.

Most People Distrust the Government, and Themselves

2012-05-22T19:00:00-04:00

The political powers that be are not popular. A recent poll from YouGov showed that most Americans are tired of political partisanship and believe that they are not well represented. Yet, while the political establishment is widely viewed with suspicion and frustration, a majority still believes that most people are not capable of making good decisions about political issues. It seems that many would rather entrust legislative concerns to incompetent and corrupt officials rather than risk the results of increased choice and personal responsibility. Unfortunately for libertarians, it looks like most people conform to what the Roman historian Sallust remarked on over two millennia ago, “Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master.” We are in a situation now where not only are liberty and just masters are hard to find, but government intrusion is normalized.

Standard public choice economics explains why the political machine is inept and corrupt. What is harder to explain is why people remain so hesitant to embrace even a little more personal responsibility and freedom. Institutions that are now embedded in the political and economic establishment, such as the departments of education, health, and transport, were all formed well within living memory. Americans were winning Nobel Prizes, healing the sick, and travelling on roads before these departments, yet there is not a libertarian who has not had to endure baffling questions such as, “Then who would make the roads/heal the sick/educate our children?”

What the situation in Europe shows us is how quickly moronic government measures become part of the cultural landscape. Government-issued ID cards in France are now perfectly accepted as normal. In the UK the National Health Service, the seventh largest employer in the world, is practically a national institution that enjoys an almost religious level of faith and devotion. Even in the midst of the worst financial crisis in decades there continue to be demonstrations demanding free education and an expansion of welfare and public pensions. Recent elections in France and Greece reflect the delusion that is taking hold in much of Europe, namely that growth in the middle of a recession is possible without austerity.

Thankfully, the U.S is not as culturally wedded to government as Europe. But this is not a historical inevitability. How best to convince people to desire liberty I am not entirely sure, but I do think it a more worthwhile pursuit than seeking out ‘just masters’. Politicians like Ron Paul do good work, and he in particular has done well to move libertarianism into mainstream politcs. However, we will need more than legislative agendas to quell the popular urge to be slaves.

How in the World Did a Case About Speech Restrictions Become a Battle Over Government Censorship?

2012-05-22T18:56:00-04:00

In a recent New Yorker article about Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the 2010 case in which the Supreme Court overturned restrictions on political speech by corporations, Jeffrey Toobin focuses on the notorious book question during the first round of oral arguments: Given that Congress had prohibited corporations (including nonprofit advocacy groups) from airing TV and radio ads mentioning federal candidates close to an election, could it also stop them from publishing books aimed at boosting or tearing down a candidate during the campaign season? Because Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart said yes, Toobin writes, "a single question changed the case, and perhaps American history." A case that could have been decided on narrower grounds—by ruling, for example, that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's ban on "electioneering communications" did not apply to nonprofit groups like Citizens United or by exempting full-length documentaries such as the FEC-proscribed Hillary: The Movie—became the basis for throwing out not only that provision of BCRA (a.k.a. McCain-Feingold) but also the pre-existing ban on "express advocacy." In Toobin's telling, things would have turned out very differently if only Stewart had answered that question correctly. But it not clear why Toobin thinks Stewart was wrong, as opposed to dangerously candid, in laying out the government's position. Here is Toobin's explanation:

Stewart was wrong. Congress could not ban a book. McCain-Feingold was based on the pervasive influence of television advertising on electoral politics, the idea that commercials are somehow unavoidable in contemporary American life. The influence of books operates in a completely different way. Individuals have to make an affirmative choice to acquire and read a book. Congress would have no reason, and no justification, to ban a book under the First Amendment.

Commercials, of course, were not truly unavoidable even back in 2002, when BCRA was passed, and the proliferation of DVRs since then makes that premise even more questionable. People choose whether to watch a commercial and whether to buy what it is selling, just as they choose whether to read a book and whether to accept its arguments. Campaign finance regulators surely could build a case for restricting election-related books on the grounds that they allow corporations to exercise undue influence on voters by presenting seemingly substantive briefs that not only persuade people directly but generate free publicity via TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, and the Internet. The question is whether there are constitutional grounds for distinguishing between political messages on paper and political messages on TV or radio. Stewart did not offer any. In fact, he not only suggested that extending the ban on electioneering communications to print would be constitutionally permissible; he noted that corporations were already barred from publishing books that include express advocacy—unambiguous support for a candidate's election or defeat. So if Citizens United had published a book explicitly opposing Hillary Clinton's selection as the Democratic presidential nominee, that would have been illegal too.

Stewart did note that the ban on express advocacy made an exception for media corporations such as book publishers (though not for advocacy groups such as Citizens United), without committing himself on whether such an exception was constitutionally required. It would be difficult to argue that it is, since "freedom of the press" refers to a technology of mass communication, not to officially recognized news organizations. It hardly seems consistent with this guarantee to say that some corporations, such as the one that publishes The New Yorker, have unfettered freedom to comment on politics while others, such as the NRA or the ACLU, have to respect government-imposed limits.

Toobin notes that during the second round of oral arguments in Citizens United—provoked largely by Stewart's response to the book question—newly appointed Solicitor General Elena Kagan declared that "the government’s answer has changed" (a statement that drew laughter from the audience). But like Toobin, Kagan never gave a satisfying constitutional (as opposed to strategic) explanation for drawing a line between media, as I explained in my December 2010 Reason article about the reaction to Citizens United:

Although the express advocacy ban "does cover full-length books," Kagan said, “there would be a quite good as-applied challenge to any attempt to apply [it] in that context" because (as she explained during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings last summer) "nobody uses books in order to campaign"—a surprising assertion, given all the biographies, manifestos, and policy books that candidates and their supporters have produced over the years. Kagan added that the FEC so far had not tried to ban any books. That reassurance prompted Chief Justice John Roberts to object that "we don't put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats."

If books might be out of bounds, Roberts asked, "what about a pamphlet?" Kagan said "a pamphlet would be different," since "a pamphlet is pretty classic electioneering." This newly invented constitutional distinction between books and pamphlets raised new questions. "When does a pamphlet become a book?" asks former FEC Chairman Brad Smith, co-founder of the Center for Competitive Politics. "Is Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, which is about 50 pages, a pamphlet or a book? How could you decide?" During Kagan’s confirmation hearings in June, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) asked her whether she really believed that “the protection of the First Amendment should depend on such things as the stiffness of a cover, the presence of a binder, or the number of words on a page."

The proposed distinction between documentaries like Hillary: The Movie (which the Court described as "a feature-length negative advertisement") and the "commercials" that Toobin says were Congress' real target raises similar problems: How short can a permitted documentary be without becoming a prohibited ad? Justice Anthony Kennedy posed another puzzler: Since BCRA's ban on electioneering communications refers to "satellite" communications, wouldn't it apply to an electronic book mentioning a federal candidate "if it comes from a satellite"? What about books read on radio or TV? Do they retain their talismanic paper value when converted to audio? Contrary to the way Toobin presents it, the book question—posed initially by Justice Samuel Alito, then pressed by Kennedy and Roberts—was not a trick that "turned a fairly obscure case about campaign-finance reform into a battle over government censorship." The battle was always about government censorship; the question merely highlighted that point.

Mexican Congressional Candidate Wants to End Drug War. Also, She Poses Topless.

2012-05-22T17:59:00-04:00

Via CNN:

The campaign involves a 34-year-old philosophy professor named Natalia Juarez, who's running for the Mexican congress. When Juarez realized her bid for office was off to a slow start a few weeks ago, the leftist candidate quickly decided she was going to be transparent with voters in a way they didn't expect.

Juarez decided to appear topless on a billboard surrounded by half-a-dozen supporters of her party, the PRD (Party of the Democratic Revolution). The billboard shows the seven women, including Juarez, naked from the waist up and covering sensitive areas with their right hands while they raise their left fists.

Juarez (shown above in the center of the billboard) is apparently trying to shock a society she describes as “lethargic” into paying attention to the race. She put up two billboards in Guadalajara. The professor claims female college students support her campaign, as well as her family. She’s also promising that her next round of campaigning will be even more shocking.

She also describes herself as a radical candidate (obviously) with radical views for Mexico about the drug war:

"When it comes to drugs and the violence generated by drug trafficking, we need to start thinking in a radical way. What do I mean by that? Well, we need to start a debate. Let's legalize (drugs), tax them and use the money for other things," Juarez said.

Mexico’s elections are on July 1.

“They think of someone they knew… who has been deported,” Democrats May Lose Latino, Immigrant Voters

2012-05-22T17:31:00-04:00

More than 400,000 illegal immigrants were deported in the fiscal year 2011, a record for the United States. There have been more deportations under President Obama’s three years in office than under the entire eight years of George W. Bush. Nevertheless, Democrats say they still deserve the votes of Latinos and other immigrants who want to see reform in U.S. immigration policies. Roll Call reports Democratic leaders like Dick Durbin and Harry Reid acknowledging that the immigration system sucks, even though, apparently, President Obama’s done more than any other president to reform the system. You didn’t notice? Neither did immigrants. From Roll Call:

“I think that there are a large number of voters, both immigrant and Latino voters, that when they first think of the president, they don’t think of additional Pell Grants, or expansion of health care, or revamping of Wall Street, or a fairer tax [system]. They think of someone they knew, either personally or related to them, or a neighbor or friend, who has been deported. And that is what first and foremost comes to mind,” Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) said last week.

Frank Sharry, executive director of left-leaning immigration advocacy group America’s Voice, said the failure to properly implement the policy has wreaked havoc on the Latino community and — along with a weak economy and the unmet expectation of immigration reform — could discourage them to turn out to vote for Democrats.

Might supporters of immigration reform move to Mitt Romney? Actress Rosario Dawson thinks so. From the Daily Caller:

Actress and activist Rosario Dawson told The Daily Caller that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney can “use” his heritage to make immigration issues “very personal” in the general election.

Addressing the Latino vote, Dawson predicted that Romney will “draw a lot of people in,” but said he faces some challenges because “the Republican Party has really sort of pushed away the Latino vote” in the past.

TheDC asked Dawson, the co-founder of Voto Latino, if Romney could garner support from the Latino community, given that his father was born in Mexico.

“Having his heritage be something that’s going to be really exciting for a lot of people to talk about and be really important for him to be speaking about what that’s meant to him as an immigrant — part of an immigrant family and story, that’s going to be really important and obviously Obama, who’s done a lot of deportations in his administration, that’s another thing that’s going to be something that people are really going to have to pay attention to,” Dawson [said]

Not that Republicans haven’t done their best to alienate Latino voters. From over-the-top state laws to whipped up hysteria over “anchor babies,” Republicans have made themselves even less appealing than our record-breaking deportations president.

What about Gary Johnson? As the former governor of a border state, he knows immigration issues. Even Texas Governor Rick Perry admitted a border wall is stupid and denying children of illegal immigration access to higher education is heartless, though he quickly apologized for his sober comments as they didn’t play well at all with the Republican base he was trying to woo.

Gary Johnson, too, opposes a border wall. He also supports making it easier to immigrate into the country legally and legalizing marijuana, which would help break the control Mexican drug cartels have in the border region. Running as the Libertarian nominee and not a Republican candidate lets Johnson focus on this issue, and gives immigrant voters who have seen their families and communities ripped apart by Obama’s deportations the opportunity to reject Democrat fear-mongering over Republican xenophobia and just vote for Johnson instead.

The Ethics of Egg Freezing

2012-05-22T16:45:00-04:00

“My parents want me to have this as a gift,” say many of the patients of fertility specialist Dr. Daniel Shapiro, the medical director of Reproductive Biology Associates in Atlanta. The gift is financial support for retrieving and freezing their daughters’ eggs.

More and more American women are waiting until they are older to have children. Why? Because they are building their careers and waiting for Mr. Right. But what if Mr. Right fails to come along before age 35? As the biological clock ticks along the chances of having biologically related children steeply diminish. Some women are now taking advantage of "fertility insurance" by having fertility clinics retrieve and freeze their eggs. The new trend for would-be grandparents to pay for this new fertility preserving procedure was reported in mostly approving terms last week on the front page of The New York Times.

While many women put off childbearing as their careers develop, others are stuck waiting for their relationships to reach the next level, thanks to the fecklessness of modern men. Many women in their late 20s and early 30s are in long-term relationships with men whom they think will eventually father their children. The relationship doesn’t work out and the women find themselves without a partner in their mid-30s or later.

Demographic trends over the past 50 years also must also be taken into account. Before the advent of the contraceptive pill in 1960, the median age for marriage for women and men was 20.3 and 22.8 years respectively. In 2010, the median age for marriage had risen to 26.1 and 28.2 years. In addition, the average age of mothers at first birth has increased [PDF] from 21.4 in 1970 to 25.2 in 2009. The most recent vital statistics report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted [PDF] that in 2009 the “rate of 39.1 births per 1,000 women aged 15–19 was the lowest ever reported in the nearly seven decades for which a consistent series of rates is available.” On the other hand, the birthrate for women aged 35-39 was 46.5 births per 1,000 women. In fact, more children were born to women over age 35 than to women under age 20.

Every advance in assisted reproduction comes with ethical questions, and this one is no different. First, should it be done at all? In her 2009 article, "Egg Freezing: A Breakthrough for Reproductive Autonomy," North Carolina State University philosopher Karey Harwood notes that infertility occurs when a normal biological process is impeded by disease or defect. Thus assisted reproduction techniques are used to treat the illness of infertility.

However, women who decide to have their eggs frozen are not infertile. They are making an “elective” or “social” choice to take advantage of egg freezing. Does this make any ethical difference? No, argues Harwood. She points out that contraception and non-therapeutic abortion are both “elective” and do not treat an illness. “The analogy to a contraceptive pill is apt because both egg freezing and the pill can effectuate delayed reproduction,” writes Harwood. “Because egg freezing may be reasonably interpreted as another form of family planning, it can be considered a legitimate exercise in reproductive autonomy.”

In addition, freezing eggs gets around the moral assertion that frozen embryos are persons since uninseminated eggs do not have two sets of genes derived from parents. Of course, using frozen eggs later to create embryos via in vitro fertilization (IVF) techniques for implantation into a woman’s womb is likely to run into that objection eventually. Standard IVF techniques often involve producing extra embryos that are frozen as backups to be used if those initially introduced into a woman’s womb fail to implant or if patients later desire additional children. Consequently, there are often frozen embryos leftover once IVF treatments have been completed. Using frozen gametes, both eggs and sperm, means that people using this assisted reproduction technique might not have to make decisions about what should be done with any leftover embryos.

In addition, to the above ethical arguments, some ethicists deploy three other objections to this new way to extend women’s fertility; (1) false hope, (2) harm to children, and (3) inappropriate commercialization.

The biological clock ticks relentlessly away so that typically a woman’s fertility (defined as probability of getting pregnant during a year) falls from 86 percent at age 20 to 52 percent at age 35. Thereafter it drops ever more steeply to 36 percent by age 40 and 5 percent by age 45.

The claim that egg freezing as a kind of “fertility insurance” engenders false hope in women who aim to preserve and extend their fertility rests chiefly on two concerns. The first is women may overestimate the real chances of having a baby using this technique. If the relevant standard is the success rate to other IVF techniques, then recent data from several clinics indicates that the rate of live births using frozen eggs is comparable, about 1 in 3 cycles results in a live birth.

The other issue is that women who hear of the technique will wait too long before taking advantage of it. Clinical evidence strongly suggests that the chances of having a baby is greater for women who choose to freeze their eggs before age 35. This is because eggs frozen after that age do not grow and implant as readily. Older eggs are far more likely to have flaws that prevent them from developing into babies than younger eggs do.

Another ethical concern is that children born from frozen eggs are disproportionately at risk for various physical and mental harms. Already some 2,000 children may have been born using frozen eggs. Preliminary indications are that rate of birth defects among such children is comparable to that of children born by means of conventional IVF techniques. For example, a 2009 study looked at 936 live births from frozen eggs and reported, “Compared with congenital anomalies occurring in naturally conceived infants, no difference was noted.” Of course, since the technique is so new, researchers need to keep an eye on children born using this technique to see if any deleterious consequences arise in the longer term.

The final set of ethical objections centers on claims that this technique furthers the medicalization and commercialization of women’s bodies. Of course, it is women who are choosing voluntarily to take advantage of this technology. They must believe that it can benefit them and further the development of their life plans. Providers of this service do get paid (the whole process can cost as much as $20,000 out of pocket), but so too do lawyers, teachers, car mechanics, plumbers, and everybody else. There is no compelling ethical reason to believe that fertility specialists should not be fairly compensated at market rates for their services.

Some ethicists argue that egg freezing amounts to an illegitimate technological fix to some of the persistent problems of sexual inequality. In this case, the ethical thing to do is to change workplaces so that there is less conflict between bearing children and women’s careers. In addition, public policy should be steered in directions that would encourage women to avoid the problem of age-related infertility simply by having children at younger ages. However, the case of France suggests that contemporary attempts to shift public policy in directions friendly to childbearing and rearing may have limits. In pronatalist France, the average age for first childbirth is 29.9 years, and despite all sorts of social programs aimed at easing the burdens of child rearing, French women have a lower labor force participation rate than do American women.

On the other hand, egg freezing actually promotes equality between the sexes. Oxford University philosophers Imogen Goold and Julian Savulsecu correctly point out, [PDF], “Men already enjoy the choice of when they have children. Women should have the opportunity to enjoy the same choices as men, if we can provide them, unless there are good reasons not to.”

Instead of dismissing egg freezing as a mere biomedical work-around, it should be celebrated as another way in which technological progress is reducing and ameliorating inequalities between women and men, reproductive and otherwise.

Ronald Bailey is Reason magazine's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is now available from Prometheus Books.

Ronald Bailey on the Upsides of Egg Freezing and "Fertility Insurance"

2012-05-22T16:30:00-04:00

More and more American women are waiting until they are older to have children. Why? Because they are building their careers and waiting for Mr. Right. But what if Mr. Right fails to come along before age 35? As the biological clock ticks along the chances of having biologically related children steeply diminish. Some women are now taking advantage of "fertility insurance" by having fertility clinics retrieve and freeze their eggs. Reason Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey argues that egg freezing should be celebrated as another way in which technological progress is reducing and ameliorating inequalities between women and men, reproductive and otherwise.

View this article.

Wisconsin Recall Effort Limps, Cory Booker's Words Resonate, Europe Threatens World Economy: P.M. Links

2012-05-22T16:30:00-04:00

Cory Booker may be backing away from his criticism of the Obama campaign's attack on Bain Capital, but his words seem to have taken on a life of their own.
With polls showing their candidate between four and nine points back, Wisconsin Democrats are facing the likelihood that their once-vigorous campaign to unseat Governor Scott Walker is falling short.
The OECD sees the world economy growing by 3.4 percent this year — so long as Europe's financial woes don't turn into an international buzz-kill.
Staying classy, and perhaps a little sexually confused, an NYPD sergeant was recorded threatening to sexually assault a man who had illegally parked along a Brooklyn street.
A federal judge struck down a Utah law that would have restricted the Internet publication of material that is constitutionally protected, but might be deemed "harmful to minors." Such restrictions interfere with the First Amendment rights of adults, said the court.
After years of heavy spending to "stimulate" the economy, Japan has the highest debt-to-GDP ratio of any major economy, and a brand-new, two-level credit downgrade.
A new Quebec law intended to muzzle student protests has, not surprisingly, invigorated demonstrations. Before taking to the street against the law, students were ticked off about hikes to the province's lowest-in-the nation public-university tuition.
After the imposition of trade restrictions and currency controls, and the seizure of a foreign-owned oil company, Argentina's economy is, shockingly, starting to sputter.

Do you want hot links and other Reason goodies delivered to your inbox twice a day? Sign up here for Reason's morning and afternoon news updates.

Does the Artist Treated Like a Terrorist Still ♥NY?

2012-05-22T16:21:00-04:00

Over the weekend New York City police arrested Takeshi Miyakawa over an unauthorized art project that involved hanging illuminated "I♥NY" shopping bags from trees and lampposts in Brooklyn. A friend told The New York Times that Miyakawa, a 50-year-old Japanese-born artist and furniture designer who moved to the city in 1989, "wanted to promote a positive message." That clearly was not the NYPD's aim. After somebody called the bomb squad, the cops treated Miyakwa like a terrorist, a lunatic, or possibly both. They ominously described one of his bag signs as "an assembly consisting of a plastic box containing wires which was connected by a wire to a plastic bag containing a battery suspended from a metal rod." In a development reminiscent of Boston's 2007 Mooninite panic, Miyakawa has been charged with reckless endangerment and placing "a false bomb or hazardous substance." His lawyer calls the whole thing "a gross misunderstanding."

ObamaCare's Defenders Keep Forgetting How Unpopular the Law Is

2012-05-22T15:57:00-04:00

At the Volokh Conspiracy, George Mason University law professor (and occasional Reason contributor) Ilya Somin highlights the weaknesses of the most common non-legal arguments made in defense of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, including the notion that a ruling against ObamaCare will undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. As Somin writes:

Claims that a decision striking down the mandate will undermine the Court’s “legitimacy” founder on the simple reality that an overwhelmingly majority of the public wants the law to be invalidated. Even a slight 48-44 plurality of Democrats agree, according to a Washington Post/ABC poll. Decisions that damage the Court’s legitimacy tend to be ones that run contrary to majority opinion, such as some of the cases striking down New Deal laws in the 1930s. By contrast, a decision failing to strike down a law that large majorities believe to be unconstitutional can actually damage the Court’s reputation and create a political backlash, as the case of Kelo v. City of New London dramatically demonstrated.

Read the whole thing here, including Somin's argument for why a ruling aginst the individual mandate would not be inconsistent with conservative judicial principles. For more on ObamaCare’s unpopularity, see this post by Reaason-Rupe polling director Emily Ekins, which notes that just 32 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the president’s health care overhaul.

Seriously, This Is What Our Elite Journalistic Institutions Are Writing About

2012-05-22T15:56:00-04:00

Oh hey look, a couple of NPR satirists have written a new book (pictured) of illustrations and poetry called Dog on the Roof!: On the Road with Mitt and the Mutt. From the WashPost write-up:

The book follows the Romney family, packed in a Chevy station wagon, on an imaginary cross-country trip. At each stop, Mitt Romney waxes eloquent about the scenery, while Seamus bemoans his precarious position.

A sample from the book: In New York, Mitt enthuses, "Wall Street's a temple,/our nation's salvation./ And we are among/its elite congregation," while Seamus frets: "As long as you're talking/ 'bout wheeling and dealing,/a bailout is needed/ on top of this ceiling!"

Let's see how other respected media outlets are treating the pressing national issue of how a 2012 presidential candidate reportedly treated his dog in 1983 (according to a 2007 article in the Boston Globe):

* U.S. News & World Report: "Why We Care About Mitt Romney's Dog and Bullying."

* The Atlantic: "Romney Treated His Dog the Same Way He Looks and Talks: 1960s-Style." (With the great B.S. subhed "Public fascination with the saga of Seamus Romney reflects a massive transformation in how Americans view their pets.")

* The Financial Times: "Animal cruelty, or Mutts for Mitt?"

And as many others have pointed out, bafflingly regular New York Times columnist Gail Collins has written about Seamus at least a dozen times.

Seriously, historians are going to look back at the coverage of the 2012 election, with its backdrop of totally predictable debtpocalypse and entitlementgeddon, and instead of responsible journalism they're going to find this shit.

DEA Wants to Track Your License Plate, and You May Already Be Tagged!

2012-05-22T15:22:00-04:00

I distinctly remember, when I was a kid, watching an episode of Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom, during which Marlin Perkins lounged safely in a camp chair, while Jim Fowler put a lion in a headlock, bit a hole in the cat's ear, and then attached a tag for easy tracking. Well, it went something like that, anyway. It's been a long time. Too bad Fowler didn't work for the DEA, or even a biggish police department. He could have saved himself a little sweat and blood by tracking Americans instead of animals, by the simple expedient of setting cameras by the side of the road to capture license plates as they speed by.

The ACLU reports on a DEA plan to scan each and every license plate that passes along Interstate 15 in Utah, with the intention of storing the data for future reference.

The DEA wants to capture the license plates of all vehicles traveling along Interstate 15 in Utah, and store that data for two years at their facility in Northern Virginia. And, as a DEA official told Utah legislators at a hearing this week (attended by ACLU of Utah staff and covered in local media), these scanners are already in place on “drug trafficking corridors” in California and Texas and are being considered for Arizona as well. The agency is also collecting plate data from unspecified other sources and sharing it with over ten thousand law enforcement agencies around the nation.

With the DEA involved, of course the up-front rationale for the plan is to track and catch drug smugglers. But even as the DEA and two cooperating sheriffs presented the plan to the Utah legislature, they allowed mission creep to seep in immediately, suggesting that the data could be used against kidnappers and violent criminals.

The Salt Lake Tribune says the idea elicited some discomfort from lawmakers:

That, however, wasn’t the concern of skeptical legislators on the Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Interim Committee. They were worried about the DEA storing the data for two years and who would be able to access it.

"It’s not against the law to drive down I-15 from Utah to Nevada to gamble," said Utah Senate President Michael Waddoups, "but there are a lot of Utahns that would be pretty embarrassed by that."

Committee members asked for more information about the scanners and the data storage and agreed to discuss the issue at its June meeting.

The chairman of the committee hearing the DEA's pitch wound things up by cautioning a DEA representative, "A lot of us in Utah don’t trust the federal government."

The scanners, which are already in place in California and Texas, and are being considered for placement near Kingman and Flagstaff, in Arizona, record the license plate, the GPS coordinates and the direction of travel. That's quite a lot of information for government officials to record and store for future reference. Once in the system, license plates aren't just tracked — they can also trigger alerts, if they've been put on a list to be stopped.

Last year, the Washington Post pointed out that automated license plate scanners, costing about $20,000 each, are already in place all around the nation's capital.

Scores of cameras across the city capture 1,800 images a minute and download the information into a rapidly expanding archive that can pinpoint people’s movements all over town. ...

More than 250 cameras in the District and its suburbs scan license plates in real time, helping police pinpoint stolen cars and fleeing killers. But the program quietly has expanded beyond what anyone had imagined even a few years ago.

With virtually no public debate, police agencies have begun storing the information from the cameras, building databases that document the travels of millions of vehicles.

A 2010 study (PDF) from George Mason University's Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy revealed that "[o]ver a third of large police agencies have already adopted [license plate recognition]" even though there's been little discussion of its use, or of community concerns, and "the question still remains as to whether this technology is more effective in reducing, preventing, or even detecting crime."

Are California Rail Authorities Looking to Cover Their Tracks with Email Purge?

2012-05-22T15:20:00-04:00

It’s almost as though California’s high-speed rail officials are actively trying to piss people off at this point.

Kathy Hamilton of the Community Coalition on High Speed Rail, a group opposing the proposed $68 billion train line connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco (eventually!), had requested copies of e-mails between the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) staff and some experts who had criticized the project's financial projections. According to California Watch, the CHSRA rejected Hamilton’s request, explaining they had implemented a new policy purging e-mails after 90 days.

The CHSRA quietly filed paperwork in February with the state for this new policy. Thomas Fellenz, chief counsel and acting CEO for the CHSRA (after the previous CEO quit in January) gave California Watch the perfectly reasonable explanation that they implemented the policy because they realized they didn’t currently have any e-mail retention policy at all. There’s nothing to be suspicious about when an agency under intense scrutiny for its unrealistic ridership and operational cost projections, currently under investigation by Congress and the Government Accountability Office and facing lawsuits from train opponents suddenly decides it’s time to purge all these silly old emails. It’s just a process!

Fellenz says rail authority staff will retain documents they think they may need for legal or business reasons and dump the rest.

Fortunately they haven’t actually purged anything just yet under this new policy. California Congressman Darrell Issa, R-Vista, head of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, is investigating the project's use of federal funds and has ordered the CHSRA to keep its last two years of documents. The agency has promised to comply. They have also reversed their response to Hamilton and will be providing her the e-mails she requested.

But some important information may have already been lost, policy or not, California Watch discovered:

David Schonbrunn, a plaintiff in an environmentalist lawsuit that challenged the high-speed rail project’s proposed route over the Pacheco Pass in Santa Clara County, said he suspects the rail authority routinely destroys e-mails that would provide useful insights into its decisionmaking.

Schonbrunn said part of the lawsuit turned on whether the rail authority had altered a computerized “travel mode demand model” that had been used to plot the best route to link the Bay Area with the Central Valley. The plaintiffs believed the model had been tweaked to make the Pacheco Pass route seem more attractive than an alternative route over the Altamont Pass, he said. During pretrial investigation, the plaintiffs found evidence that the model had indeed been changed, said Schonbrunn, a paralegal who worked on the case.

“But because the e-mail was destroyed, we were unable to get somebody giving the instructions for that to be done,” he said.

Elsewhere, the Wall Street Journal calls the train “California’s Kafka Express” (subscription required) while flogging Gov. Jerry Brown over his insistence on keeping the project going even as the state’s gargantuan budget deficit grows.

Attention Los Angeles-Area Reasonoids! Doherty talking Ron Paul's rEVOLution at Book Soup on Sunset, Tuesday 7 p.m.

2012-05-22T15:20:00-04:00

That's tonight! You've (probably) read him talking about Ron Paul here on Hit and Run--now see and hear him do it in person at Los Angeles's best stocked and coolest vendor of new books, Book Soup, and tell him what you really think.

It's free and open to all, even Hit and Run commenters. It's great if you buy a book, but not an obligation. Freedom is popular, as Ron Paul says.

WHEN: Tuesday May 22, 7 p.m.

WHERE: Book Soup, 8818 Sunset Blvd., West Hollywood, CA (Los Angeles)

WHAT: Doherty will talk a bit about the book and the past present and future of the Ron Paul Revolution, and will sign copies of said book.

Details from Book Soup's website.

Make Your Own Damn Movie With Collaboration Filmmakers Challenge

2012-05-22T15:07:00-04:00

Write, shoot, cut and edit your own movie.

Get your work in front of Reason.com movie critic Kurt Loder, freedom-loving filmmaker Tim Minear and other luminaries in Hollywood.

Make the best movie and win $5,000.

The Collaboration Filmmaking Challenge starts May 24. Join up now!

Details:

The $5000 top prize is awarded to the team who creates the CFC’s top film, as awarded by the jury panel at our festival screening at the beautiful Harmony Gold Theatre in Hollywood. We’ll be bringing in some of Hollywood’s brightest creative minds, such as Tim Minear (Firefly, Wonderfalls, The Inside) and Kurt Loder to watch and review our participants’ submissions! The audience will also select its favorite film, whose creators will be awarded a $1500 prize!

The third prize is our $1500 Key Collaborator Award, an individual award given out to the person who contributes most to the efforts of his/her fellow filmmakers. That’s right: you could win $1500 by helping someone else win the contest. What makes the CFC a truly unique experience is that it goes beyond simple competition. As the name suggests, this challenge is about bringing filmmakers together to transform one person’s vision into a masterpiece through powerful creative partnerships.

So how does it work? At the beginning of the contest, the CFC will announce the filmmaking theme, which all filmmakers will express through their films. This year we’ve been inspired by the brilliant P.J. O’Rourke, but that’s all we can tell you for now…

The contest runs for two weeks, with all participants working in randomly assigned teams of two: one filmmaker and one collaborator.

Who is this challenge for? It’s for anyone! Industry pros, student filmmakers, amateur enthusiasts—all are welcome. The beauty of this experience is that you’ll be working alongside many other people with a similar passion for filmmaking, and anyone could win.

What’s the catch? One, you’ve got to submit an application and $35 registration fee. Two, you must be able to commit to BOTH weeks of filmmaking. Participants must complete both weeks of filmmaking to qualify.

You must register before the mandatory orientation on Thursday, May 24. The filmmaking dates are 5/30-6/12, and the screening will take place on Friday, June 22^nd.

For more information about the Collaboration Filmmaker’s Challenge, including a calendar and the complete rules, visit our website at:www.collaborationchallenge.com. Email any questions to info@collaborationchallenge.com!

Reason.tv: Joel Stein on His "Stupid Quest for Masculinity"

2012-05-22T15:00:00-04:00

Government Spending Claims Two More Victims

2012-05-22T14:03:00-04:00

Recently, two more countries have felt the bite of Keynesianism. Today, the credit ratings agency Fitch downgraded Japan’s economy and the AP reported that the Argentinian economy is likely to decline sharply. While Japan and Argentina might be different kinds of economies performing differently in different markets, their recent bad news can be attributed in part to a fondness for government spending.

Japan’s explosion in government spending is in part a response to the March 2011 tsunami caused by a once-a-millennium earthquake that released energy equivalent to 600 million times that released by the Little Boy bomb and knocked the globe a few degrees off its axis. The Japanese government spent a huge amount of money on reconstruction, and the Prime Minister, Yoshihiko Noda, has pledged 20 trillion yen ($259 billion) more on reconstruction — money that has to be borrowed. Even before the tsunami, Japan had a worrying debt to GDP ratio. Japan has the world’s highest debt to GDP ratio, 211%. This figure is more staggering when you consider that in 2002 the debt to GDP ratio was 151.7%. Long before last year’s tsunami Japan was developing a taste for expansive government. The only reason why Japan is able to last with this level of debt is that most of the country’s debt is held domestically.

In Argentina the future is looking grim. The Argentine government has engaged in government spending on welfare programs and industry subsidies that were only made possible after President Kirchner refused to pay back lenders in full. A low rainfall and the devaluing of the Brazilian currency have not helped the economic situation in Argentina, but it is unlikely that even without these unforeseen circumstances that Argentina would have been able to insulate itself from the consequences of its overspending, especially with major economies in recession.

Of course Japan and Argentina are not the first economies to face diminished growth or downgrades. The U.S. and France have both been downgraded, and the U.K recently entered a double-dip recession. However, more and more economies are seeing the consequences of fiscal and monetary expansion. It would be nice to think that governments might learn from the current situation and not repeat the mistakes that contributed to the current crisis. Events in Europe in particular do not seem to be offering any indication that we might be able to look forward to such a future.

Kevin Binversie on the Amazingly Bogus Scott Walker ‘Divide and Conquer’ Video

2012-05-22T13:30:00-04:00

Much has been said of the highly edited 38-second YouTube video in which Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is caught saying he would “divide and conquer” the state. Listening to critics of the governor, you’d think it was almost like finding the smoking gun still at the scene of the crime. Yet as Kevin Binversie writes, if the complete clip is so damning, why won’t Walker’s opponents release it?

View this article.

The Amazingly Bogus Scott Walker 'Divide and Conquer' Video

2012-05-22T13:30:00-04:00

Democrats say it is irrefutable evidence that Walker is a power-hungry pol. They argue it proves the governor says one thing in public and another in private to some of his biggest campaign donors. They point to the video as proof that Walker is set to enact “right-to-work” legislation, and that Act 10, the law reducing government employee's collective bargaining power, was just the beginning.

What’s amazing about the entire video is that documentary filmmaker Brad Liechtenstein refuses to post the entire video. All he’s given the media is a transcript of the conversation. Yet releasing the full video would provide true context of the conversation between Walker and ABC Supply President Diane Hendricks.

Otherwise, given the current video’s make-up, its reliance on out-of-context editing, and the rapid-response from recall backers to fully exploit it, it’s easy to pinpoint its purpose: Re-energize liberal turnout ahead of the recall.

Liechtenstein has been around the politico-cinematic block going as far back as documentary work for PBS in 1996 on the Clinton-Dole presidential race. He probably has been around long enough to know when he has video which will help promote his project. He'd also know if he has video on his hands that can help promote a cause.

The "ConquerGate" video is pure political catnip for the liberal base—meant to re-energize voters who may have been deflated by the recent Democratic primary and a new wave of polling numbers indicating Walker is likely to win.

The reasoning for the video is simple: to broaden the Democratic conversation from the real purpose of the recall—collective bargaining for public employees—to the more universal theme of Walker's alleged untrustworthiness and hunger for power. Collective bargaining doesn’t move votes. Those aren’t my words, they’re the words of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin’s Communication Director Graeme Zielisnki in the left-leaning magazine Mother Jones.

So would it be safe to say that while collective bargaining might not be moving votes, it might move people to the polls? Given the response and faux outrage over Walker’s remarks, that appears to be the only reason that a video like this is even released three weeks prior to election day.

Add in news reports that the filmmaker will not allow the full, unedited video to be made available so the public may draw its own conclusions, and it’s hard to argue the video wasn’t built to boost Democratic turnout above all else.

Kevin Binversie is a Wisconsin native who has been blogging on the state’s political culture for more than eight years. This article originally appeared at WisconsinReporter.com.

Support for Pot Legalization Crosses 50 Percent, With 56 Percent of Americans Now In Favor of Treating it Like Booze

2012-05-22T13:13:00-04:00

"A solid majority of voters nationwide favor legalizing and regulating marijuana similar to the way alcohol and tobacco cigarettes are currently regulated," reports the polling firm Rasmussen.

"A new national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows that 56% favor legalizing and regulating marijuana in a similar manner to the way alcohol and tobacco cigarettes are regulated. Thirty-six percent (36%) are opposed to such a legalizing and regulating pot."

That's up nine percentage points from March 2012, when Rasmussen found that "47% [of Americans] now believe the country should legalize and tax marijuana in order to help solve the nation’s fiscal problems. Forty-two percent (42%) disagree, while 10% are undecided."

Earlier this month, Mason-Dixon Polling & Research reported that "75% of Democrats, 67% of Republicans, and, notably 79% of Independents said that President Obama should respect state medical marijuana laws."

In October 2011, the polling firm Gallup reported that for the first time 50 percent of Americans thought marijuana should be legal, while 46 percent felt that it should remain illegal.

H/t Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

Obama Administration Required to Spend $20 Million Advertising ObamaCare

2012-05-22T12:31:00-04:00

For the last two years, the Obama administration and its allies have been unsuccessfully attempting to boost ObamaCare’s consistently struggling poll numbers through various messaging strategies. They tried telling people that in fact they really liked the law, Jedi mind-trick style. They tried not talking about the law at all. They tried selectively highlighting the parts of the law they thought people would like. They published ObamaCare-themed electronic Mother’s Day cards, so you could tell her, really tell her, just how special she is to you.

Mom didn’t come through for the administration. Neither did the rest of the public. Despite the various efforts, the law’s poll numbers have remained stubbornly low.

But maybe a new $20 million ad campaign will succeed where previous messaging efforts have failed? Health and Human Services Director Kathleen Sebelius has her fingers crossed: According to PR Week, marketing firm Porter Novelli — the ad wizards that gave us both the USDA food pyramid and the Truth antismoking campaign — has won a $20 million contract to promote the law through a multimedia advertising blitz. The campaign will “inform the American people about the many preventive benefits now available to those with Medicare, Medicaid, and private health insurance as a result of the Affordable Care Act,” an HHS official told the trade publication.

You can’t pin this campaign on desperation because it’s required by the health law itself. According to The Hill, “The campaign was mandated by the Affordable Care Act and must describe the importance of prevention while also explaining preventive benefits provided by the healthcare law.” How convenient: The law’s authors set aside $20 million to advertise the law’s benefits during an election year. Don't like the existence of the campaign? Don't blame the folks in the Obama administration: They had to do it.

How big is a $20 million marketing campaign? Big enough that when independent political groups spend the same amount on ads criticizing President Obama, the expansive adjectives start to roll: When Crossroads GPS, a conservative activist group led by former Bush adviser Karl Rove, announced a $20 million ad effort attacking the current administration’s economic record, National Journal called the first $5 million ad rollout “significant,” while ABC described the entire project as a “massive $20 million TV ad campaign.”

It seems only reasonable, then, to describe this as a “significant,” even “massive,” expenditure of taxpayer funds to promote the president’s health law during an election year.

Space X Launch Successful, Plans to Dock With Space Station on Friday

2012-05-22T12:18:00-04:00

Early this morning, private space company Space X sent its Dragon capsule into orbit. On Friday, if all goes well, it will rendezvous with the International Space Station, thus kicking off a beautiful $1.6 billion, 12 mission friendship with NASA to ferry cargo back and forth in the post-Shuttle era. Eventually, that cargo may include astronauts as well.

On this mission the second stage of the Falcon 9 rocket did carry some human cargo, actually. Exactly 308 people made the trip. They were already dead, though, which made the craft less crowded that it would otherwise be, and the mission somewhat lower risk. Among the ashes: Actor James Doohan, who played Scotty on the 1960s television series "Star Trek," and Mercury astronaut Gordon Cooper.

Reactions around the Web ranged from capitalistically ecstatic:

"I think this is an example of American entrepreneurship at its best," Alan Lindenmoyer, manager of NASA's commercial crew and cargo program, said in a briefing before the launch.

To semi-grudging:

Admittedly, having seen the last two shuttle launches in person, we didn't know how we'd feel about watching this test of launch and rendezvous by Space Exploration Technologies, otherwise known as SpaceX. So we choose to keep our distance....SpaceX is neither future nor failure. Based on this recent launch, SpaceX is the necessary present.

If you're feeling the need to gird your loins for the new private space era now upon us, why not check out Reason's special space issue with all the answers.

Reason.tv: Joel Stein on His "Stupid Quest for Masculinity"

2012-05-22T12:13:00-04:00

"I went into the book thinking that being a man, in reality, was about being loyal, and being present, and being honest," says Joel Stein, author of the new book, Man Made: A Stupid Quest for Masculinity. "And then I found out that's bullshit. Being a man is about being kneed in the face by [mixed-martial-arts fighter] Randy Couture."

Stein sat down with Reason's Tim Cavanaugh to discuss Man Made, for which he embarked on a journey to become more manly so that he can properly raise his newborn son. In writing the book, Stein hunted for the first time, became a day trader, endured Army boot camp, and wrestled Randy Couture.

"Each of these things I did actually made made me manlier," says Stein. "It gave me...more of a code to live by and it made me more confident, more capable."

About 6:30 minutes. Shot by Paul Detrick, Tracy Oppenheimer, and Zach Weissmueller. Edited by Weissmueller.

Visit http://reason.tv for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

A. Barton Hinkle on Gary Johnson's Reputation

2012-05-22T12:00:00-04:00

“When researchers announced the discovery of a mountain taller than Everest on the asteroid Vesta, Gary Johnson had already climbed it.” So said “Gary Johnson Facts” on Twitter a while back, after noting that “A duck’s quack does not echo. Gary Johnson is solely responsible for this phenomenon.” Like Chuck Norris, who inspired this genre of humor, Gary Johnson is not viewed with gravity by a great many people these days. This is too bad, writes A. Barton Hinkle, because—unlike Norris—he should be.

View this article.

Gary Johnson Marches Up Another Mountain

2012-05-22T12:00:00-04:00

Like Chuck Norris, who inspired this genre of humor, Gary Johnson is not viewed with gravity by a great many people these days. This is too bad, because—unlike Norris—he should be.

The Everest gag refers to a “true fact,” as such things are called: Johnson once climbed to the summit of Mt. Everest—and he did so with frostbitten toes and a leg that had not fully healed from an earlier break. He hopes to reach the highest peak on every continent. If past is prologue, he probably will: He already has scaled Mount Elbrus, Mount McKinley, and Mount Kilimanjaro. He also has competed in the Ironman triathlon five times, has run 100 miles in 30 consecutive hours—in the Rockies—and he has nearly killed himself paragliding.

All of those adventures are just a pastime, however, for a presidential candidate who already has had two careers. When young he went into business as a handyman with zero employees. When he sold his construction company years later, it had more than 1,000.

Then he ran for governor as a Republican in heavily Democratic New Mexico. He had no prior political experience. He won by a 10-point margin. (By poetic coincidence, he beat a competitor for the GOP nomination named Dick Cheney.) Johnson spent his first term slashing taxes and reining in the growth of the state budget. Then he won a second term, and spent that crusading for school vouchers and marijuana legalization. He set a record for vetoing bills—750 of them, more than all other 49 governors combined during the same period—and left a budget surplus in his wake.

Last year Johnson ran for the Republican nomination for president. For reasons known only to the organizers, he was shut out of three early debates, which effectively killed whatever chance he had of gaining traction in the primaries. But those chances were slim to begin with, given his views on issues such as abortion (he believes “fundamentally in the right...to choose”), gay marriage (“equal acess to marriage for all Americans is a right,” he says, blasting President Obama for giving the matter only “lip service”) and national defense (he would cut the Pentagon 43 percent, just like every other department—except Education, which he would abolish).

Equally problematic in the GOP these days, he also believes in evolution. To make matters worse, “I believe in global warming and that it’s man-made.” And even though he does not use tobacco, alcohol, or caffeine, he did use marijuana for three years to ease the pain from his paragliding accident.

On the other hand, he is not likely to win over many Democrats with his views on gun control (“I don’t believe there should be any restrictions when it comes to firearms. None”), taxes (he cut them 14 times as governor), or Obamacare (he has said it is unconstitutional).

Given those positions, he’s a natural fit for the Libertarian Party—whose presidential nomination he won earlier this month. As ABC News put it, Johnson “intends to hit Obama from the left and Romney from the right. ‘I got a leg up on Obama when it comes to civil liberties,’ Johnson said. “I crush Obama when it comes to dollars and cents. I think I have a leg up on Romney when it comes to dollars and cents and I think I crush him on civil liberties.’ ” He would repeal the Patriot Act and says habeas corpus should be “respected entirely.”

Johnson has another political Achilles’ heel: He is unflinchingly honest. “Always be honest and tell the truth” is one of his Seven Principles of Good Government. A profile in GQ last year put it more bluntly: “There is nothing he will not answer, nothing he will not share. . . . Johnson is fundamentally incapable of bull****ing.” Example: When Mitt Romney made a swing through Michigan, he gushed oleaginously about how “I love this state. It seems right here. The trees are the right height. I like seeing the lakes. I love the lakes. . . .” By contrast, when a reporter asked Johnson if he would say the same nice things about Michigan that he had said about New Hampshire, he answered: “No, Michigan’s the worst.”

With those positions and that level of candor, he’ll be lucky to get 0.5 percent of the vote. On the other hand, he will probably enjoy the campaign. As he told another newspaper last February, “The endeavor itself is a great adventure. I’m a Zen kind of guy … You better darn well like the journey, or the destination won’t mean anything.”

A. Barton Hinkle is a columnist at the Richmond Times-Dispatch, where this article originally appeared.

Cato Relaunches Police Misconduct Tracker, Assuring Regular Online Diet of Face-Stomping, Groin-Crushing ‘Professionalism’

2012-05-22T11:52:00-04:00

This week marks the official relaunch of the National Police Misconduct Reporting Project under the auspices of the Cato Institute, taking over for the now-defunct Injustice Everywhere blog.

David Packman, operator of Injustice Everywhere (a police abuse news feed that was a frequent source of tips for Reason.com), had announced in April that his blog was struggling. After mulling over his options, he announced in a goodbye blog entry last week he was handing the site and the duties over to the Cato Institute. Injusticeeverywhere.com now redirects to Cato’s site.

Tim Lynch, Cato’s director of their Project on Criminal Justice, is overseeing the blog now. The project’s Twitter feed (@NPMRP) is the best way to keep track of new abuse report links. This morning they have a link to a story at The Jersey Journal about a $185,000 excessive force settlement. They’ve got a form to report any misconduct reports they might have missed. They’ll also be compiling all the incidents into quarterly and annual statistical reports.

Below: Reason.tv on the outrage in Fullerton, Calif., by residents over their officers' violent beating of 37-year-old Kelly Thomas and his subsequent death.

NY Times Columnist: Glass-Steagall Wouldn't Have Prevented the JPMorgan Loss or the Financial Crisis

2012-05-22T11:47:00-04:00

"Dealbook" columnisst Andrew Ross Sorkin pokes a liberal sacred cow:

A meme around Glass-Steagall has been created, repeated so often that it has almost become conventional wisdom: the repeal of Glass-Steagall led to the financial crisis of 2008. And, the thinking goes, has become almost religious for some people, that if the law were reinstated, we would avoid the next crisis.

The facts — basic facts — just aren’t that convenient. While the repeal of Glass-Steagall has seemingly become the sine qua non of the financial crisis, it is pure historical revisionism. [...]

Glass-Steagall wouldn't have prevented the last financial crisis. And it probably wouldn't have prevented JPMorgan’s $2 billion-plus trading loss. The loss occurred on the commercial side of the bank, not at the investment bank. [...]

The first domino to nearly topple over in the financial crisis was Bear Stearns, an investment bank that had nothing to do with commercial banking. Glass-Steagall would have been irrelevant. Then came Lehman Brothers; it too was an investment bank with no commercial banking business and therefore wouldn't have been covered by Glass-Steagall either. After them, Merrill Lynch was next — and yep, it too was an investment bank that had nothing to do with Glass-Steagall.

Next in line was the American International Group, an insurance company that was also unrelated to Glass-Steagall. While we're at it, we should probably throw in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which similarly, had nothing to do with Glass-Steagall.

More in that vein here. My favorite part of the column comes when Sorkin gets Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren to reluctantly admit that the restoration of Glass-Steagall probably would not have prevented everything she likes to rail against, despite her constant messaging to the contrary.

In my conversation with Ms. Warren she told me that one of the reasons she's been pushing reinstating Glass-Steagall — even if it wouldn't have prevented the financial crisis — is that it is an easy issue for the public to understand and "you can build public attention behind."

She added that she considers Glass-Steagall more of a symbol of what needs to happen to regulations than the specifics related to the act itself.

What the world needs less of: symbolic governance.

Reason came to similar conclusions about Glass-Steagall a little earlier in the debate.

UPDATE: I should point out, since commenters seem to be confused about it, that the "Elizabeth Warren says" image here was put there by me (note alt text), and is not an ingenious (or foolish) advertisement.

Reason Writers on The Alyona Show: Matt Welch Talks Cory Booker, Peter Thiel, and Big Government's Mutual Attraction With Lobbyists

2012-05-22T11:13:00-04:00

On Monday, May 18 21, Reason Editor in Chief Matt Welch Appeared on the "Hangover" segment of The Alyona Show to talk about all of the above and more with co-panelist Jake Brewer: